Exclusions

Note

While CHHiP included some high-risk patients, the majority of evidence for hypofractionation relates to low and intermediate risk.r

In the definitive setting, hypofractionation may be considered in patients with lower high risk disease or those with locally advanced disease in the context of other patient factors such as shorter non-prostate cancer related life expectancy or patient preference.

Contoured as a solid structure from head of femur to level of ischial tuberosity.

Urethra

Avoid hotspots in the urethra

Optional.

Recommend MRI to visualise urethra.

OAR notes

Where no reference is available the constraints listed are the consensus of the reference committee.

Doses listed here are from the CHHiP trial and reflect the OAR contours described within the trial protocol. When applying these constraints to a clinical setting, clinicians should consider the significant variation between contouring guidelines in this trial and within individual institutions.

These constraints are based on the currently available evidence from clinical trials when modulated planning techniques and implanted hydrogel rectal spacers were not widely used. The RCM strongly recommends that treating clinicians consider improving on the constraints taking into account local and patient specific factors. Link to Moderate hypofractionation for prostate cancer: A user’s guide.r

Efficacy

Hypofractionation vs conventional fractionation radiotherapy

The evidence supporting this protocol is provided by a phase 3 multicentre international randomised non-inferiority trial (PROFIT) involving 1206 patients comparing conventional fractionation (cfx) radiotherapy (cfx arm – 78Gy/39# n=598) with hypofractionated (hfx) radiotherapy (hfx arm – 60Gy/20# n= 608) in patients with intermediate risk prostate cancer.r The use of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) was not permitted in this study. The primary end point was biochemical-clinical failure (BCF) which was defined as the first occurrence of any of the following outcomes: PSA failure, hormonal intervention, clinical evidence of local or distant failure, or death from prostate cancer. After a median follow up of 6 years, the 5-year BCF disease-free survival in both arms was 85% (95% CI, 82% to 88%). The hazard ratio (HR) for the hfx vs cfx arm was 0.96 (90% CI, 0.77 to 1.20). Compared to the cfx regimen, the hfx regimen was found to be non-inferior. In the hfx arm, 10 deaths as a result of prostate cancer were observed compared with 12 in the cfx arm (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.32 to 1.82). There was no significant difference for grade ≥ 3 late GU and GI toxicity. The hfx arm observed significantly less grade ≥ 2 GI toxicity than in the cfx arm.

Two other large, well powered, multicentre international non-inferiority randomised controlled trials, CHHiPP and RTOG 0415, have also reported non-inferior efficacy for hfx regimens compared to cfx control arms.rr

The CHHiP trial involved 3216 patients with predominantly intermediate risk prostate cancer randomly assigned to receive cfx radiotherapy (74Gy/37#) or one of two hfx radiotherapy dose regimens (either 60Gy/20# or 57Gy/19#).r Most patients received ADT before and during radiotherapy. Median follow-up was 62·4 months (IQR 53·9–77·0). The proportion of patients who were biochemical or clinical failure free at 5 years was 88·3% (95% CI, 86·0–90·2) in the cfx fractionated 74 Gy group, 90·6% (95% CI, 88·5–92·3) in the hfx 60Gy group, and 85·9% (95% CI, 83·4–88·0) in the hfx 57Gy group. The hfx 60Gy regime (n= 1074) was non-inferior to the cfx 74Gy regime (n=1065) (HR 0·84 [90% CI, 0·68–1·03], pNI=0·0018). Non-inferiority could not be claimed for the 57Gy hfx regime (n=1077) compared with 74Gy cfx regime (HR 1·20 [0·99–1·46], pNI=0·48). Similar long-term side effects were observed between both hfx groups and the cfx group.

The RTOG 0415 study randomised 1115 patients with low-risk prostate cancer to receive either cfx radiotherapy of 73.8 Gy in 41 fractions (n= 542) or hfx radiotherapy 70 Gy in 28 fractions (n= 550).r The use of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) was not permitted in this study. After a median follow up of 5.8 years, the 5-year disease-free survival in the cfx arm was 85.3% (95% CI, 81.9 to 88.1) and 86.3% (95% CI, 83.1 to 89.0) in the hfx arm. The hazard ratio (HR) for hfx vs cfx fractionation was 0.85 (95% CI, 0.64 to 1.14) with the hfx regimen found to be non-inferior. There were no statistically significant differences in the early GI and GU toxicity; however, there was increased late grade 2 - 3 GI and GU toxicity observed in the hfx arm (HR, 1.31 to 1.59).

The HYPRO trial showed non-superior disease control and a lack of non-inferiority for GU and GI toxicity of the hfx regimen.r HYPRO used a significantly higher biologically equivalent dose compared to other studies which potentially explains the increased toxicity.

Prostate cancer risk category

Some caution should be given to the application of these hfx regimes in the different risk settings. The PROFIT trial only enrolled intermediate risk patients, the RTOG 0415 study cautions not to extrapolate these results beyond the setting of low-risk disease, and whilst the CHHiP trial enrolled patients with low, intermediate and high-risk disease, overall the patients predominantly were in the intermediate risk category.rrr

IMRT and IGRT

Of the three trials, PROFIT was the only one to mandate IGRT for all patients, and the vast majority of the men managed on PROFIT received IMRT rather than 3DCRT.r

Toxicity

A summary of the most clinically significant toxicities associated with this protocol are included in the table below:

Flinders Filters has partnered with eviQ to build reliable, robust search filters to retrieve core high level evidence on topics of significance to eviQ. The project goal is the provision of a sustainable model for evidence retrieval to ensure ongoing currency of content.

These search filters have been developed to retrieve the most up to date evidence from PubMed, in real time, using specifically designed search filters built to meet our needs.

Searches can be used when a protocol is scheduled for review or at any time you choose. Please click on the Specific, Balanced and Sensitive tabs below to access the Pubmed searches.

restricted to retrieving randomised control trials and systematic reviews.

is the middle ground between sensitive and specific searches.

retrieves all clinically relevant evidence - generally a broader search on a given topic.

Troubleshooting

Occasionally the searches may not display correctly or take too long to load (and will eventually timeout). This may be caused by Internet Explorer being unable to handle long URL's. You can rectify this by using Firefox, Safari or Google chrome. It is always a good idea to clear the cache regularly to ensure you are getting the most up to date search.

Feedback

If you identify any new articles that you believe should be included in the content, please use the feedback button below to inform us of the name of the article(s). This will generate an email to eviQ when feedback is entered; these comments will then be reviewed and made available to all users to view if appropriate.

The information contained in this protocol is based on the highest level of available evidence and consensus of the eviQ reference committee regarding their views of currently accepted approaches to treatment. Any clinician (medical oncologist, haematologist, radiation oncologist, medical physicist, radiation therapist, pharmacist or nurse) seeking to apply or consult this protocol is expected to use independent clinical judgement in the context of individual clinical circumstances to determine any patient's care or treatment. Use is subject to eviQ’s disclaimer available at www.eviQ.org.au